Searching for GOD...

[Sriram]

Not really a fallacy as such as you would have seen if you had read the link, rather it's a bad argument because the analogy doesn't support the argument. And even twere it to have been a fallacy, simply throwing your hands up and refusing to point out where your argument isn't a fallacy makes your post worthless.

Why is it a bad argument?  We did not come up with the idea of 'Consciousness being independent of the body', merely because of computers.  Computers are used  as an example to illustrate the point. This is perfectly valid.

[Nearly Sane]

Why is it a bad argument?  We did not come up with the idea of 'Consciousness being independent of the body', merely because of computers.  Computers are used  as an example to illustrate the point. This is perfectly valid.

  Because the analogy isn't close enough to justify that extrapolation. Just because something is like something in one sense doesn't mean it is like it in other senses. This was already covered in my previous posts both in the link and in the example of DNA being like a 'code'.

[Sriram]

  Because the analogy isn't close enough to justify that extrapolation. Just because something is like something in one sense doesn't mean it is like it in other senses. This was already covered in my previous posts both in the link and in the example of DNA being like a 'code'.

No....I agree that in any analogy the complete analogy need not necessarily be applicable in Toto. But how do you decide which part of the analogy does not apply?

That cannot be based entirely on your comfort zone.  You people keep dismissing arguments, analogies and even some research findings such that finally only the same old science standard model remains.  That is nonsense. 

[Nearly Sane]

No....I agree that in any analogy the complete analogy need not necessarily be applicable in Toto. But how do you decide which part of the analogy does not apply?

That cannot be based entirely on your comfort zone.  You people keep dismissing arguments, analogies and even some research findings such that finally only the same old science standard model remains.  That is nonsense.

  it depends on the demonstration that the analogy works. You haven't shown that simply asserted it. And as has been pointed out to you numerous times, it isn't that the possibility is being dismissed, it's your assertions that it is true.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

You people keep dismissing arguments, analogies and even some research findings such that finally only the same old science standard model remains.  That is nonsense.

No, "we people" keep dismissing only the arguments that are wrong. You stop posting wrong arguments and we'll stop dismissing (actually falsifying) them.

It's not complicated.

[Sriram]

  it depends on the demonstration that the analogy works. You haven't shown that simply asserted it. And as has been pointed out to you numerous times, it isn't that the possibility is being dismissed, it's your assertions that it is true.

Since you are admitting to the possibility...that is good enough for me...! 

[Nearly Sane]

Since you are admitting to the possibility...that is good enough for me...! 

  I admit to the possibility that Boris Johnson is actually group of gastropods that have the ability to through a hive mind and their discovery of shapeshifting technology assume the shape of a human and become PM so perhaps it shouldn't be enough for you. It's not a high bar..

[Stranger]

Since you are admitting to the possibility...that is good enough for me...! 

I see you've been paying no attention whatsoever, again. I haven't seen anybody deny the possibility.

You refuse to learn anything or even pay attention to what is said - what's the point?

[Nearly Sane]

  I admit to the possibility that Boris Johnson is actually group of gastropods that have the ability to through a hive mind and their discovery of shapeshifting technology assume the shape of a human and become PM so perhaps it shouldn't be enough for you. It's not a high bar..

I should also clarify that this is even more trivial an admittance in that I am not sure that either claim is actually possible but for the purposes of normal discourse I am viewing something as not shown to be impossible as being possible. On a more strict approach all that I am accepting is that your claim has not been shown to be impossible. This is not the same as having been shown to be possible.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Since you are admitting to the possibility...that is good enough for me...! 

Aside from the narrow area of logical impossibilities, no-one has denied the possibility of anything. That's just a straw man you keep peddling, presumably in the hope no-one notices. Propose anything you like - the Duke of Edinburgh is a shape-shifting lizard alien, auras, orbiting teapots, biofields, characters in the SIMS game actually controlling us rather than the other way around, no-one cares much. Your epic and continued mistake though is to imply that possibility tells you something useful about probability.

It doesn't though. If you want to show that something is probable rather than just possible, then - finally - you have to make an argument for it that doesn't collapse immediately into fallacious thinking. And that old son is where you always - and I mean always - go wrong.

[Outrider]

It is something we learn from the fact that we are independent of the computer we use and that we have intelligence and consciousness independent of the computer intelligence.

That's not an established fact - that's an assertion.

An alien on the other side of this exchange could imagine that the computer is by itself communicating with it...when this is not really so.

Or, the alien could be absolutely correct.

So, our Consciousness also could be independent of our body and brain. And events like NDE's confirm precisely that.

Our consciousness could be, but there's no evidence to suggest that it is, and nothing missing from the model that it isn't that matches the available evidence.  We could all be worms in a jar imagining this, but the fact that we could be doesn't lend any weight to the argument that we are, for that you actually need something that supports your contention.

Now you've offered NDE, but there are a wealth of explanations within the current model of brain activity that explain the subjective feelings and sensations undergone at these times which don't require the addition to the evidence-support model of unsupported additional external factors.

We have a model that is supported by the evidence, which strongly correlates with other observable phenomena, and 'spirits' aren't required to make it work... why add unfounded additional elements to a model that doesn't need them?

O.

[Alan Burns]

Even if we don't fully know how mind arises from matter, or matter arises from mind, clearly it happens somehow, and declaring it magic is a cheap way out of trying to understand it.  Which is all you are doing.  And if I am conscious, and I seem to be, and my son is conscious, as he seems to be, and my dog is conscious, as he appears to be, then whatever explanation we have for consciousness, must apply across the board to all creatures with sense organs and not just humans.

Your constant attempts to try to compare human consciousness with that of animals does nothing to aid your presumption that we are entirely driven by material reactions.  There is no evidence of animals having the conscious freedom to contemplate the reality of their own existence, or to profess belief or unbelief in a Creator,  If there was such evidence, it would be evidence of God's supernatural gift - not a natural consequence of material reactions.

[Gordon]

Your constant attempts to try to compare human consciousness with that of animals does nothing to aid your presumption that we are entirely driven by material reactions.  There is no evidence of animals having the conscious freedom to contemplate the reality of their own existence, or to profess belief or unbelief in a Creator,  If there was such evidence, it would be evidence of God's supernatural gift - not a natural consequence of material reactions.

So few sentences: so many mistakes (albeit the same ones you make in virtually every post you make).

[Stranger]

Your constant attempts to try to compare human consciousness with that of animals does nothing to aid your presumption that we are entirely driven by material reactions.

Why would that be?

If there was such evidence, it would be evidence of God's supernatural gift - not a natural consequence of material reactions.

Baseless assertion.

Even for you this was a classic example of illogical incoherence...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Your constant attempts to try to compare human consciousness with that of animals does nothing to aid your presumption that we are entirely driven by material reactions.  There is no evidence of animals having the conscious freedom to contemplate the reality of their own existence, or to profess belief or unbelief in a Creator,  If there was such evidence, it would be evidence of God's supernatural gift - not a natural consequence of material reactions.

Are you seriously suggesting that consciousness is defined as "having beliefs in gods"?

Seriously though?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

You’ve had this mistake explained to you many times. Why do you keep repeating it?

The so called explanations fail to explain my conscious freedom to contemplate the nature of my own existence

1. Ultimately all causal explanations are correlations. If I hit a nail with a hammer and it goes into the wood that correlates with the explanation that the hammer drove the nail into the wood. That doesn’t however eliminate the possibility that invisible elves did it instead. 

The causal explanations for the nail and the hammer are backed up by applying the laws of physics.  Not so with human conscious freedom.

2. The “correlation” of consciousness as an emergent property of brains is substantial because that’s what all the evidence and reasoning to hand tells us. That’s not to say that “souls”, magic dust or mind-controlling unicorns for which there’s no evidence at all necessarily might not be in play, but absent evidence or logic for any of these things there’s no reason to doubt the explanation that best fits the facts.

But the fact is that consciousness cannot be explained in terms of material reactions

3. Consciousness is “defined”. Just look it up. What you’re trying to say here is that the explanation for it is incomplete. No-one denies that though. The explanation for gravity is incomplete too. Should we just revert to pixie theory for gravity instead then? 

The fact that the property of gravity is entirely predictable and that it can be directly related to material elements leads to a valid presumption that it is caused by material.  Not so with human consciousness.

4. If ever, ever you bothered to find out even the slightest thing about the phenomenon of emergence you’d see why you fundamentally misunderstand what it entails. That though would be a terrifying prospect for you given your decades long investment in some very bad ideas, so dishonesty is the better option isn’t it.

But the truth is that nothing actually emerges.  The word "Emergence" is wrongly used in this context.  What we see is just an observed functionality or pattern entirely derived from predefined material reactions.  This functionality does not have any influence or control over the reactions from which it is derived.  The concept of emergent properties comes nowhere near to explaining the conscious freedom I have to compose this message

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Are you seriously suggesting that consciousness is defined as "having beliefs in gods"?

Seriously though?

All I am pointing out is that we have conscious freedom to contemplate the existence or non existence of God.

[Outrider]

The so called explanations fail to explain my conscious freedom to contemplate the nature of my own existence.

Your expression of a belief in freedom is not proof of freedom, any more than the claim of Vishnu is a proof of Vishnu or the claim of ghosts is proof of ghosts.

The causal explanations for the nail and the hammer are backed up by applying the laws of physics.  Not so with human conscious freedom.

We aren't attempting to demonstrate human conscious freedom, we're establish a range of reasons why it's an unjustified claim.  Like, for instance, the physical measurable phenomena of 'hammers' and 'nails' are markedly different from the absence of any evidentiary basis for the phenomenon 'conscious freedom'.

But the fact is that consciousness cannot be explained in terms of material reactions

It can.  It has been.  That you are incredulous is not a proof that the explanation isn't sufficient.

The fact that the property of gravity is entirely predictable and that it can be directly related to material elements leads to a valid presumption that it is caused by material.  Not so with human consciousness.

Why?

But the truth is that nothing actually emerges.  The word "Emergence" is wrongly used in this context.  What we see is just an observed functionality or pattern entirely derived from predefined material reactions.

What methodology do you apply to determine whether a given property is an emergent complexity from the interaction of simpler elements or an independent property?

This functionality does not have any influence or control over the reactions from which it is derived.  The concept of emergent properties comes nowhere near to explaining the conscious freedom I have to compose this message

But nothing that you've posted justifies your claim that you have conscious freedom to need an explanation.

O.

[Outrider]

All I am pointing out is that we have conscious freedom to contemplate the existence or non existence of God.

Actually, you're pointing out that you feel we have the conscious freedom, not that the feeling is justified.

O.

[Outrider]

  I admit to the possibility that Boris Johnson is actually group of gastropods that have the ability to through a hive mind and their discovery of shapeshifting technology assume the shape of a human and become PM so perhaps it shouldn't be enough for you. It's not a high bar..

I was fully accepting of this until you suggested some sort of co-ordinated 'hive mind' manner of thinking - I've not seen very much evidence of that at all...

O.

[Alan Burns]

It can.  It has been.  That you are incredulous is not a proof that the explanation isn't sufficient.

You are wrong in this.  There is no explanation or demonstration available to show how conscious awareness can be generated from material reactions.

But nothing that you've posted justifies your claim that you have conscious freedom to need an explanation.

Everything I post is evidence of my conscious freedom to do so.

I am constantly being accused of personal incredulity, but this incredulity is not personal - it is based on my identification of valid reasons, not on emotions.  The irony is that if it was personal, this would in itself be evidence of my personally driven freedom to make unjustifiable assertions.  A freedom which can't be explained by predetermined material reactions over which I have no personal control.

[Stranger]

The so called explanations fail to explain my conscious freedom to contemplate the nature of my own existence

They come far, far closer than impossible, self-contradictory magic.

But the fact is that consciousness cannot be explained in terms of material reactions

Baseless assertion.

All I am pointing out is that we have conscious freedom to contemplate the existence or non existence of God.

Your ability to contemplate does not support your self-contradictory assertions about "freedom".

Why are you going round in circles? What's the point? All these inane assertions, incredulity, dishonesty about evidence, and all your extensive collection of fallacies have all been answered many times before.

Why not, just for a change, stop pretending that they haven't, start engaging with the answers, and try to offer some counterarguments?

[Alan Burns]

Actually, you're pointing out that you feel we have the conscious freedom, not that the feeling is justified.

O.

No.
I am demonstrating my conscious freedom by deliberately composing and sending this reply.  It is not just a feeling - it is a demonstrable reality.

[Stranger]

Everything I post is evidence of my conscious freedom to do so.

Why do you persist with this lie? Nobody disputes your ability to think and post but it is not, and cannot be, evidence for your impossible explanation of that ability.

I am constantly being accused of personal incredulity, but this incredulity is not personal - it is based on my identification of valid reasons, not on emotions.

Why have you never posted any of these valid reasons?

The irony is that if it was personal, this would in itself be evidence of my personally driven freedom to make unjustifiable assertions.

More of the same lie.

A freedom which can't be explained by predetermined material reactions over which I have no personal control.

Baseless assertion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The so called explanations fail to explain my conscious freedom to contemplate the nature of my own existence

No it doesn’t. Why wouldn’t consciousness as an emergent property enable you to do that?

The causal explanations for the nail and the hammer are backed up by applying the laws of physics.  Not so with human conscious freedom.

Wrong again. Emergence as a phenomenon is widely documented and well understood. It too follows various “laws”, ie principles that by following simple rules consistently phenomena described at the level of the individual components of the system are qualitatively different from phenomena arising from the interaction of those components. If you’d bother reading anything I’ve linked for you in the past you’d know this already though.

But the fact is that consciousness cannot be explained in terms of material reactions

It can be explained, but not in sufficiently complete terms for your liking because that explanation conflicts with a faith belief you hold a priori. Thus you abandon a coherent but incomplete explanation for a faith belief that’s incoherent and about which you have no explanatory information of any kind. What laws explain the workings of a soul exactly?

The fact that the property of gravity is entirely predictable and that it can be directly related to material elements leads to a valid presumption that it is caused by material.  Not so with human consciousness.

Wrong again, but in any case the point was that you use the term “defined” when you actually mean “explained”. And when you mean “explained”, what you really mean is, “that explanation has gaps in it that I can exploit to junk it entirely in favour of a superstition that explains nothing at all”.   

But the truth is that nothing actually emerges.

That’s not “the truth” at all. Of course properties emerge – it happens all the time if you bother to look for it.

The word "Emergence" is wrongly used in this context.  What we see is just an observed functionality or pattern entirely derived from predefined material reactions.

Perhaps if you bothered to read something about the subject you wouldn’t keep making a fool of yourself by posting this kind of egregious nonsense?

This functionality does not have any influence or control over the reactions from which it is derived.  The concept of emergent properties comes nowhere near to explaining the conscious freedom I have to compose this message

Why are you doing this to yourself? It’s not that it “does not have any influence or control over the reactions from which it is derived”, it’s that the experience of “conscious freedom” is the emergent property. The feeling that there’s a separate little “you” in there puling the stings is a beguiling one, and up until about 300 years ago that’s as far as our thinking went. Since then though we’ve developed much better understanding of consciousness, such that only the very young or the very ill-informed still cling to it.     

All I am pointing out is that we have conscious freedom to contemplate the existence or non existence of God.

Yes, at one level at least we have the experience of having “the conscious freedom” to contemplate all sorts of things. So far as we can tell, other animals have that freedom too – that’s why some of them plan, co-operate, defer reward, create etc. Thinking about some things but not others though is no definition of consciousness as you asserted.

I know you’re entirely indifferent to the numerous logical fallacies on which you rely, but one of the most dispiriting you favour is that of circular reasoning: “God is real because he’s made us conscious; consciousness is believing in god”. And round and round you go, entirely oblivious it seems to the stupidity of your “argument”.